DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “rotating filter” (see claims 1 and 11-12), “means for blocking” (see claim 6) and “a single mechanical part” (see claim 10) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims appear to be a literal translation of a foreign application and contain numerous grammatical errors. For, example, claims 1-10 recite “Appliance”, rather than “An Appliance”. Claim 11 recites “Tool”, rather than “A tool” and claim 12 recites “Cover”, rather than “A cover”. Claim 1 also recites “The appliance also comprises” in line 15, and appears to start a new sentence with the capitalization of the word “The”. Examiner has only provided examples of the numerous grammatical errors. Applicant is advised to review all claims in their entirety for grammatical and/or typographical errors.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The corresponding structure for performing the term “means” is found at, for example:
Para 0067 recites:
In some variants of embodiment, a blocking means (not shown), for example a lever, prevents any rotation of the pusher 60 relative to an axis parallel to the axis of rotation 25 of the basket 42. The pusher being blocked in rotation by this blocking means, it handles the torque needed to process the fruit or vegetable, preventing it from rotating with the basket 42.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
GROUND 1: Claim 6 is rejected under both 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, and 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because the specification lacks a proper description of any corresponding structure as a result of the 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, analysis above.
As previously explained, the following claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Claim 6. Appliance according to claim 5, which also comprises a moveable pusher in the insertion channel of the cover, this pusher having an outer shape corresponding to the shape of an inner wall of the channel, and a means for blocking a rotation of the pusher relative to an axis parallel to the axis of rotation of the basket.
The written description does not disclose the corresponding structure or material for performing the entire claimed function nor does it clearly link the structure or material to the function. Specifically, para 0067 discloses that the means for blocking may be “for example a lever”, but fails to distinguish or illustrate any structural details thereof.
For these reasons, the limitation lacks proper written description and are indefinite, and as a result, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP §§ 2181, subsection IV, and 2185.
To address the section 112 rejections based on the 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, interpretation, Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If Applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure or material perform the claimed function, Applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
GROUND 2: Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites “Appliance according to claim 5, which also comprises a moveable pusher in the insertion channel of the cover, this pusher having an outer shape corresponding to the shape of an inner wall of the channel, and a means for blocking a rotation of the pusher relative to an axis parallel to the axis of rotation of the basket.”. Again, para 0067 generically defines the means for blocking as a lever but fails to disclose or illustrate any structural details thereof and fail to disclose how the lever is posiotned with rescpt to the pusher, cover and/or basket of the appliance. As such, these limitations lack proper written description under section 112, first paragraph, (for AIA , section 112(a)). As a result, claims 6 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
GROUND 3: Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, in part, “a rotating electric motor mechanically connected to at least one basket, a rotating filter comprising cylindrical or conical peripheral walls making it possible to extract juice by centrifugation” which leads to confusion over the defined “basket” and “rotating filter” components within the claim, and whether they are the same part or separate and distinct components of the juicer appliance. A “rotating filter” is not labeled in any of the Figures. Para 0065 recites “which scrapes the inner edge of the rotating filter, or basket 42” and thus appears to refer to the component 42 interchangeably. Claims 11 and 12 recite nearly identical limitations.
Claims 1 and 11 recite, in part, “a ramp positioned, in a permanent way during the operation of the appliance” which leads to confusion and one to assume the ramp is in alternate position when the appliance is not in use, which is contrary to the limitation “permanent way”. Furthermore, if the ramp is affixed or secured in a “permanent way”, it is unclear how it would be removed or repositioned when not in use.
The term “close to the inner basket” in claims 1, 4 and 11-12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how “close to” the ramp is positioned in a permanent way.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as being necessarily dependent upon claim 1. Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the opening" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5-8 are rejected as being necessarily dependent upon claim 4.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the fixed residue recovery tool" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear how the “cover supporting the fixed residue recovery tool by positioning the ramp facing the inner surface of the basket at a predefined distance” if the ramp is “positioned in a permanent way” as defined in claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the insertion channel" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the residue recovery tool" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “Appliance according to claim 5, wherein the channel comprises a cylindrical or conical wall, this wall opening into the inner volume of the basket, in which there is at least one plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the basket and passing through the inner volume of the basket, whose intersection with this wall is not circular” which is unclear what the Applicant intends to claim by reciting “whose intersection with this wall is not circular”. That is, it is unclear how any intersection between an axis of rotation and a perpendicular plane could be circular. The language appears to be a literal translation and leads to confusion as to the intended shape and configuration of the wall as claimed.
Claim 10 recites “Appliance according to claim 9, wherein a single mechanical part comprises the basket and the press cone” which leads to confusion if the basket and press cone are joined via a mechanical part (not illustrated) or if the two components are merely formed as a single, integral component of the juicer appliance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
GROUND 4: Claim(s) 1-8 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,355,784 to Franklin et al.
In regard to claims 1 and 11-12, Franklin et al. disclose an appliance 10 for preparing foods, intended to produce fruit and/or vegetable juice from fruit and/or vegetables that are whole or in pieces, which appliance comprises: a rotating electric motor 24 mechanically connected to at least one basket 16, a rotating filter comprising cylindrical or conical peripheral walls making it possible to extract juice by centrifugation (See Col. 4, Lines 3-10), this basket having an inner volume delimited by the cylindrical or conical peripheral walls of the basket, a volume into which the fruit and/or vegetables are introduced and which is equipped with juice drainage openings 30a (see Fig. 16), this basket rotating, in a rotational direction, around an axis of rotation and a lower surface for receiving the juice flowing through the drainage openings of the basket (See Col. 4, Lines 17-27); The appliance also comprises: a fixed tool for recovering residues, comprising a ramp 44 positioned, in a permanent way during the operation of the appliance, close to the inner surface of the basket, the ramp having, in the direction of rotation of the basket, a slope ascending to an upper surface of the inner volume of the basket opposite the lower surface, such that the residues carried by the basket to the ramp move up the ramp to exit from the inner volume of the basket (see Fig. 1 and Col. 4, Lines 52-61). With regard to claim 12, Franklin et al. disclose a cover 18 which supports a fixed recovery residue tool which comprises the ramp (See Fig. 19 and Col. 11, Line 50 – Col. 12, Line 48).
In regard to claim 2, Franklin et al. disclose an appliance, wherein the basket comprises at least one drive surface 216/218 drawing the residues exiting from the ramp outside the inner volume of the basket (See Figs. 16-18).
In regard to claim 3, Franklin et al. disclose an appliance, wherein the basket comprises, on the perimeter of its upper surface, a residue drive collar 216/218 guiding the residues outside the inner volume of the basket (See Figs. 16-18).
In regard to claim 4, Franklin et al. disclose an appliance, which also comprises a residue collection container (not shown) whose opening is positioned outside the inner volume of the basket and close to the upper surface of the basket (see Col. 4, Lines 23-26).
In regard to claim 5, Franklin et al. disclose an appliance, which also comprises a cover 18 supporting the fixed residue recovery tool by positioning the ramp facing the inner surface of the basket at a predefined distance, the cover having a channel 26 for inserting fruit and/or vegetables that opens into the inner volume of the basket, and also surfaces 254, 244 for guiding residues towards the opening of the collection container (See Figs. 1 and 19 and Col. 11, Line 50 – Col. 12, Line 47).
In regard to claim 6, Franklin et al. disclose an appliance, which also comprises a moveable pusher 20 in the insertion channel of the cover, this pusher having an outer shape corresponding to the shape of an inner wall of the channel, and a means (i.e. shape) for blocking a rotation of the pusher relative to an axis parallel to the axis of rotation of the basket (See Fig. 19 and Col. 12, Lines 51-56).
In regard to claim 7, Franklin et al. disclose an appliance, wherein the channel comprises a wall supporting the residue recovery tool (see Figs. 19 and 21).
In regard to claim 8, Franklin et al. disclose an appliance, wherein the channel comprises a cylindrical or conical wall, this wall opening into the inner volume of the basket, in which there is at least one plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the basket and passing through the inner volume of the basket, whose intersection with this wall is not circular (See Figs. 1 and 19 and Col. 11, Line 50 – Col. 12, Line 47).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
GROUND 5: Claim(s) 9-10 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,355,784 to Franklin et al. in view of FR 2912631 to Lebrun et al.
In regard to claims 910, Franklin et al. disclose an appliance 10 for preparing foods, intended to produce fruit and/or vegetable juice from fruit and/or vegetables that are whole or in pieces (see rejection above), but are silent with respect to wherein the basket is attached to a press cone. Lebrun et al. teach of an analogous juicer appliance comprising a pressing cone 5 for extracting juice from fruit/vegetables introduced into the appliance (See Figs. 3 and 13). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace the cutting blades of Franklin et al. with na press cone to provide an alternate juice bowl that more effectively and efficiently removes juice from foodstuff introduced into the blade basket as taught by Lebrun et al. and is well known in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J KASZTEJNA whose telephone number is (571)272-6086. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7AM--3PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW J KASZTEJNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
Prosecution Insights